You have repeatedly used the phrase “vampiric gerontocracy” in a number if your pieces and I’m sick of it. Many of my contemporaries lost their homes in the early eighties, and it took years to rebuild their lives. Many of us helped support our own parents and children simultaneously, and a good many more of us do not have pensions. I’ve been an entrepreneur most of my life, and am one of those people. My home and what investments I’ve managed to accrue are what I hope will allow me to look after myself when I am too old to work. You seem to be under the misapprehension that all Boomers are insanely wealthy. They aren’t. All levels of government have colluded in creating the housing mess, and stoking inter generational warfare is imo entirely unconstructive. Enough with your repetitive “vampiric gerontocracy” nonsense - this is one darling which you should have killed some time ago.
You struggled in the 80s and now I bet you enjoy net wealth well into the six figures. And you earned every penny of it, eh?
Boomers are, statistically speaking, the wealthiest demographic in the country. And the utterly historic run up of house prices -- wildly beyond what could possibly be justified by inflation -- is part and parcel with that utterly uncontroversial observation. You, struggled, worked hard AND you also won the demographic lottery -- a bad stretch in the '80s aside. In addition to the human struggles we all face, you were also very, very lucky. Failing to acknowledge the latter half comes across to the younger among as as profoundly oblivious and entitled.
What I don't understand is why Boomers believe that they, and they uniquely, ought to be protected from these facts. Why is it that you allow your personal feelings to be caught up in statements about intergenerational macroeconomic factors?
Your generation's accumulated real estate wealth is coming at the expense of younger poorer generations who will not have the same opportunities that you have had. That's just the reality of the situation.
To observe this is not a personal attack. You didn't do anything wrong, you simply participated in the economy you had at the time. You may be poor and not own a home at all -- that says nothing one way or another about the intergenerational issues at play. It's not about you as an individual, nor about your personal triumphs or hardships. I'm talking about the financial impact your generation has had, and the situation that my generation now has to cope with as a result. JG
tl;dr: I'm going to continue to refer to Canada as a vampiric gerontocracy, because it is. If that hurts your feelings, perhaps you might want to ask yourself why you're taking it personally.
I’m sure you will. After all, you use the phrase over and over again. I have no trouble admitting that (except for many of us losing our homes in the eighties due to 22% mortgage rates) my generation has been lucky. I don’t take it personally, but I think you could have made many of your otherwise excellent points without making such a generalisation about an entire generation. I don’t do that with Millennials or any other group of people. Every single generation has its challenges. I’m from Vancouver, and the insane housing prices are largely because the province and city turned a blind eye to the money laundering of Beijing’s elites. I could never afford to live there now. I know that you will do as you please, but perhaps you might consider why you’re so devoted to such a vituperative phrase. Pax.
Shelley, I lived in Vancouver for 51 years and enjoyed fully paid home ownership at an early age and before I had a good job. But I also got out of the housing market in Vancouver and Toronto just before prices went crazy. Unlike you, I'm not whining about my situation and I am not blaming Beijing and money laundering for the absurd prices across all of Canada. Prices are not just ridiculous in Vancouver and Toronto. I also never had children so have been paying for other people's children all my life. Again, I'm not whining about it. I chose to grow up and accept all the things I had and did not have control over in my life.
Also, my grandparents lived much humbler and harder lives than I ever have. I never heard one word of complaint or victimhood from them!
I am sorry that you think I’m “whining” about my personal situation, about which I actually have no complaints at all. I do not dispute that my generation has been lucky. I completely understand the frustration felt by young people (I don’t think that they’re “whining” either). I think that using the term “vampiric gerontocracy” is completely unconstructive for purposes of discussion in the same way that I don’t fancy the term “Generation Slack” used for Gen X people. What a paragon of virtue you are, too! Very impressive.
You blame Boomers for the debt? When the last boomer pm was in power the debt was $628B and it's $1.050T. Unless we were executives or civil servants we didn't get defined benefit pensions. They were converted in the 80's to DB plans. Instead of blaming boomers for union seniority rules (which they are guilty of) you could blame boomers for shipping union jobs out of the country. Boomer government gave the unemployed benefits. So while boomers made many bad choices (every generation does) I still don't see where the vampiric label fits.
I'm blaming all voters who support deficit financing. Boomers seem to have particular attraction to Trudeau 1.0 and 2.0, the two PM's who ramped up program spending
Your description of Canada as a "vampiric gerontocracy" is of course correct.
But, as well as house prices, you should consider Covid. Essentially the only people at risk from Covid are Baby Boomers, and for them we destroyed a generation's speech development, schooling, social lives, and financial prospects, with our extreme Covid response.
We have forced millions of young people to get vaccinated, despite very clear evidence that the shots are net harmful to them. Many young men are showing impaired heart function 6-8 months after their initial diagnosis of myocarditis. The fact that the shots do nothing to stop transmission, and so forcing the young to take them didn't even help the Boomers, is mere icing on the cake.
There is rock solid evidence of large increases in mortality for people under 45, which are not caused by Covid. Whether you attribute these deaths to vaccine adverse events or lockdowns, they are sacrifices on the altar of the Baby Boomers. Our Covid response has cost far more life years than it saved, and far more than were lost to Covid itself. "Vampiric" is only barely a metaphor.
I, and many of our generation argued against locking the world down (many tweets if you're interested). Many of us were more concerned about the effects on our children and grandchildren than on the danger to ourselves. I know my in-laws in retirement homes understood that we wouldn't be coming for their own safety. We got them an iPad and internet and the staff showed them how to zoom. They understood, we understood.
The government on the other hand would could not stomach the daily death count and lost their minds. NOT OUR FAULT! People are still calling for lockdowns and it ain't old people.
I think Jen's phrase means that Canada is run by (or for) elderly vampires, not that every single elderly person is a vampire. The elderly opposed to lockdowns are definitely not vampires or, sadly, part of the -ocracy.
Well the boomers don't have the co-Prime Ministers or the former leader of the opposition or most of the Premiers. The country isn't run by elderly vampires but the Laurentian elites. Those Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto politicians, business CEO's, bureaucrats and academics.
Whose blood are we sucking. And when you say "you earned every penny of it" I say yes. In the same way anyone smart enough to have bought MSFT or AMZN or FB or GOOGL earned it. We gave up lots of the luxuries to invest in paying off our mortgages. And we did things like paying for our own childrens' care. Now I pay for other peoples grandchildren while I help out with my own. Just WHAT do you want from us? 35,000 of us died from COVID and that didn't put a dent in the problem. Maybe we aren't the problem.
People are taking it personally because you made it personal.
Almost every response is how one Boomer or another paid so much, worked so hard, helped their kids or grandkids, survived one thing or another, in other words personal. You say it's not a personal attack, that Boomers did nothing wrong, it's just the inter-generational, financial impacts that you and your cohort now need to cope with. Well, yeah, that's how it works. No one said it would be fair. Why are you not pissed at the Gen Xs who have been the largest beneficiary of Boomer wealth to date? And they are still out there, nose to the grindstone, doing their best for their Millennial and Z kids.
Sorry Jen, name calling completely negates the very good points you made. No one is talking about them though. But take heart. The "pig in the python" is slowly being digested, the vampires will step into sunlight. You might think about reno's. All those old houses will need upgrading.
Baby boomers put $1 in the bank in the 60's and it turned into $1M 40 years later. You have lived through the most accelerated growth period in human history. It had NOTHING to do with you and your "so-called" skills. You got lucky. Face it.
Yes, of course, we all had money in the bank and just watched it grow. I have millions of $, I just don't think you are worth sharing it with.
Why are you so bitter? No one had a crystal ball that said invest in real estate or invest in tech stocks, or only have one, maybe 2 kids because the cost of university is going to skyrocket like everything else. Some people started a rock and roll band and did ok with that, others did other things and again yes we all put our dollars in a savings account or CSB or whatever we did and we made out like bandits (not). Until the hot water tank blew and needed replacing. Then it was the roof. Not that the shingles were so expensive but the labour, oy vey! Many of us were very skilled at what we did and we loved what we did and lived an idyllic life of one car, one landline, one TV set, mowing the grass on Saturdays, hibachis on the patio, Star Trek (original) on Tuesday nights, and Beaver Cleaver lived on the corner.
So the saving accounts were dipped into because who knew we were going to need millions of $ for our whiny dependents.
Some families broke up and more often than not mom got the kids. A man's financial worth would rise more than 30%, I think, I could be wrong on that number. But a woman's financial worth invariably plummeted plus she's the sole support of however many kids they had. Banks, doctors, and bosses, all had a Boomer guy attitude towards women. Try to open a bank account in your own name without a parent's signature (at age 30), if you were a separated or divorced Boomer mom. Doctors would ask for permission slips from your husband and that's when you were still married to the bum. Bosses! Well, bosses... women are still only getting about 80% of the wages or salaries that men get. But yeah, we were Boomers. Freedom 55 and a 40' yacht.
We had it good. We partied and smoked and drank and danced and for a while, we really thought we were going to change the world. I guess we actually did because there are just so damned many of us and the "pig in the python" isn't half through.
All I can tell you Tara (for the novel?) is suck it up. Come up with a better way if you don't like how it is now. Jen has many good ideas, she's obviously spent some time thinking on the topic as do many other people posting here. Don't ask the real estate industry or government or banks to do it for you. Or get into gov and make a change from within. Pouting, whining, complaining, and dissing someone for LUCK does not work. Look at what you are doing with your expendable income and like Boomers before you tighten your belt. But with a little bit of luck, you might score something with a roof and you can lord it over all your friends.
The whining is coming from your corner Lou, not mine. I fully agree with what Jen says - all of it and “bitter” doesn’t even begin to describe the contempt I have for your generation. The vampiric gerontocracy is appropriate, as we’ve lived in the shadow of Boomers sucking the very lifeblood out of society with the shrill entitlement voice of, “I deserve it!” which I never ever heard once, in any generation prior to yours. Backpeddle and whine all you want. We’re not buying it anymore.
You seem puzzled why a boomer may take being called a vampire personally. Other than Scary Garry or The Count on Sesame Street I struggle to think of any case where that term is used as a term of endearment.
I know eh? The darn old people complaining because they bought their own houses and paid for their own daycare and dental care and drugs. Why should the young have to pay for that shit. Old rich people owe to the young.
I already have dense housing and gov't subsidized housing in my neighborhood. I didn't fight either. A drop in 10% means more to my next generation than it does to me. Sure I could borrow less against my house but otherwise - no effect.
Apr 13, 2022·edited Apr 13, 2022Liked by Line Editor
Line Editor - i.e. Jen:
As with the column itself, this response is well written and thoughtful.
I am in my early seventies and, yes, I have been fortunate to benefit from increased real estate pricing. In my case (I live in Calgary), my house value has not increased anywhere near as much as it has in such wondrous (!) places like the center of the universe in TO or in Vancouver but, still, I am up about 2.4 times over the 30 years that I have lived in this house Certainly inflation is a part of that and I make no apology for that but simple appreciation that I did not earn is also a large part and, while I don't apologize for that appreciation, I do recognize that it comes with responsibilities.
I have helped one of my adult children to purchase his first house (son and spouse are now on house number three!!) and I expect that I will get a call from my other adult child to assist when she gets to the point that she tries to acquire a house - I am really dreading that because as a retiree my resources are much more limited than previously but I do have a responsibility.
So, the point is, I was lucky and I need to find a way to assist my one child to herself become lucky in terms of housing. To put this in generational terms, my generation - the baby boomers - has been lucky in many, many ways; we must assist AT LEAST our next generation in moving along in their lives.
I leave you with the only life philosophy to which I subscribe (ignoring the concept of religion which is personal to everyone). My job in life is to, as best I can, raise my children to be good citizens and to assist my children in raising their children to be good citizens. That is the basis upon which I say that we as baby boomers must assist our children.
Bless you. The thing that concerns me about kind parents like yourself, however, is that it creates a real distortion between the families who can afford to help their kids out and the families that cannot. This cannot have good long term effects. JG
First off, thank you for your kind words. Now, allow me to put them aside.
As I have said, my job was / is to raise my kids to be good citizens and then to assist them to raise their kids to be good citizens.
Clearly, my age group has been fortunate. Just as clearly, my wife and I, specifically, have been fortunate; not wildly so but we have been fortunate - I was able to retire when I hit 68, after all, something that not everyone can / could do. Our assistance to our kids continues in a variety of small ways that are ultimately oriented in making it easier for them to raise their children, our grandchildren. We simply do not have the resources anymore (retirement has pitfalls!) to make large cash advances, etc. but we can do other things to assist.
What I must say clearly is that it is paramount that we, the older generation, continue to contribute to our communities. For some fortunate folks they can contribute financially to their children and grandchildren. My wife and I can make a small contribution to our kids' ongoing issues but, really, the magnitude of the problem is getting outstandingly outlandish [pretty good alliteration, huh?] and of a magnitude that we cannot solve. That means that we will have to find some (possibly imaginative) alternatives to provide that assistance.
The job of parents, to get their own kids started and to assist with the grandkids.
So - pardon me, please, please - stuff the "Bless you." I do not mean to be disrespectful; I simply note that, as a parent, my job description hasn't really changed. To me, my wife put it best: she says that she has stopped being a parent and now works at being a grandparent. In other words, we are simply continue to try to do our job, the one that we signed up for when we decided to have children; we are / were fortunate that things worked out modestly well for us so it is mandatory that we pass along some element of that good fortune.
We are the wealthiest because we bought our house. I get it . As with Shelley I get no corporate pension and live on savings. I bought my first house at 18% interest in Alberta just before Trudeau the Elder inflicted the province with the NEP. I lost all my equity and had to start over. We never had the zero interest rates. We did without the Euro vacations and taking the kids to Disney land and bought used cars so we could make mortgage payments. And you are full of shit if you don't think we want houses for all. Do you think we want our children in our house or without one of their own?
I realize that the boomers in Rosedale and Forest Hills etc don't want high density but I don't think many of us real people are against it. These are also the boomers who have all the wealth. It is not evenly distributed amongst all boomers. We borrow against our fabulous wealth to help out our kids with their mortgages and to pay for our parents in retirement homes.
Instead of dwelling on the house we bought look at Boomer median income. We are well under the 25-34 year cohort in income.
You might want to look at the Corporations who are buying up homes. This will cause rises in home prices, rises in rents and they will be actively lobbying against any proposed solutions.
We could build more homes without tax giveaways. Get rid of stupid regulations, the NIMBYism and if then market needs more skilled workers -- we know where we can get them. The world has plenty.
I don't think for one moment that Boomers don't want their kids in nice houses. I just don't think most of you would be willing to eat a 30-40% loss in the value of your house in order to ensure that would happen. And who could blame you? Not me. JG
That's about what it cost me in "gifts" so the kids could afford their houses. If we got any interest on our money if we sold, we would consider selling out and living in different accommodations. Add to that the monthly expense of our in-laws in a retirement home and I don't feel all that wealthy. Again I ask, what you would have us do?
You hit on a point that hasn't been mentioned so far: risk vs. reward. Millennials have only seen a housing market on an upward trajectory. In the 80's and 90's sinking money into a house was risky. I'm about 10 years younger than our Line Editor, so I'm clearly not a Boomer. When I bought a house (at less than $50 per sq ft backing onto a large park in Calgary) as an early twentysomething, friends and family thought I was nuts. My perception of risk was such that I worked my ass off (three jobs) and lived frugally (no vacations, no restautant meals, no cable TV, minimally insured junker car, wardrobe from Costco) to pay off the house in 4 years as I was scared silly of the prospect of rising interest rates.
That being said, once the Greenspan Put become official policy post 1997 Asian financial crisis, the risk of owning assets like housing substantially declined, yet the returns have amplified. The root cause is actually a US Fed mandate, both explicit and implicit, to manage unemployment rates and asset values.
What could could Canada do:
-narrow BoC mandate to only only target inflation. Central Banks should have absolutely no Keynesian role
-at least strike to inquiry to investigatevmoney laundering in Canadian real estate
-lower immigration quotas to reduce demand. This will mean reforming government pension schemes (ex. converting public sector to DC and pushing OAS and CPP eligibility a few years past 65). Unfortunately the Trudeau government took the regressive steps of cancelling the previously announced phase-in of OAS eligibility to 67, increased CPP and relaxed the Harper era vice grips on public sector compensation
-wind down CHMC. Banks and homeowners should not be shielded from market risk
Jen may be right about the boomer demographics. They do collectively hold lots of wealth. Oddly, the longer people have worked and earned, the more assets they've accumulated. Many of these assets appreciate over time. Jen may be too young or inexperienced to understand the house-rich, cash-poor that many boomers are living. Luckily we didn't have to spend $100/month on phones, $100 a month to watch TV, $100/month to play online games and $50 a crack to read decent journalism :).
I was thinking along the lines of how often what unions, the members of unions, did for all of us. Yes, strong arm tactics have been used, but what options when it's big money you are going up against? But it seems to me that most people are perfectly happy to negate what unions have done for them and they now take it all for granted.
For instance, a 7 day work week, a 40 hour week, stat holidays, the end to child labour, safer working conditions, the right to refuse unsafe working conditions, gender equality, equal pay for equal work, the right to know about unsafe conditions (bc you can't refuse them if you don't know it's unsafe), mat and pat leave, pensions, sick leave....
Many think that all of these and more would have simply happened anyway but that's not so. For years I've been watching government and corp interests, hell, religious ones too gnaw away at what people fought and died for (that all important phrase). All for the principle of human dignity at work.
I know that unions are only as popular as their last work action be it railways, hospital workers, nurses and/or the ones that do the mopping up or teachers, just listen to the crap loaded on teachers should they walk out. How many kids should be in a class room? How many kids without English should be in that classroom? Teachers get the summer off. How tough can it be to babysit a bunch of snot nosed kids every day? Most teachers in our public school system have educations far in advance what most doctors may have. But hey, why do they need or want a union?
Ok, that's my personal buggaboo for today. I'm rambling on like ML. And May Day is coming up soon.
Yes Boomers have been the beneficiary of the housing bubble, but there are lots of enablers. Real estate agents, banks, brokers, lawyers, municipalities to name a few have all feasted on the explosion of real estate valuations, many probably most of those people aren't boomers. So to dump the blame for this insanity on a single generation is not only factually incorrect it's kind of pointless .. it's everyone's problem now. The big question is what should this rube goldberg layer cake of a democracy that we have actually do about it? I'm an Ottawa resident and I think one thing thing came abundantly clear from the chaos of the occupation/protest the federal-provincial-municipal triumvirate isn't making good decisions right know. If we can't solve something as simple as removing a couple of hundred ill informed idiots from the downtown core of our national capital how are we going to resolve something as complex and big as the housing asset bubble without blowing up the life savings of our biggest cohort just as they are retiring? While it's fashionable to pile on the boomers, that (i.e. my) generation is spending a lot of that accumulated wealth right now trying to keep their kids in school and co-signing their mortgages. As a matter of policy we need start looking as housing as an essential good rather than an investment lottery, and take a hard look at among other things the tax code that encourage that behavior.
Casey I agree. But to be fair to our First Nations people I think we should start with giving them clean drinking water, then start tackling their deplorable housing conditions. II can't believe we spend billions of dollars on First Nations issues and we still can't give them potable water. I realize Singapore's government operates more authoritarian, but how does size a small land mass provide affordable rental and self-owned government housing? Each development contains all the daily services you need as part of the complex.
Sandra, I absolutely agree that potable water on first nations territory is an essential item. If you remember, our current Prime Idiot stated that he was all over the first nations issues when he was also our feminist PM in 2015. Of course, he has proven himself a liar on both counts. But, as they say, I digress.
I agree that other nations can provide lessons to us in very many ways, possibly including housing. I would note, however, that to look at Singapore - the nature of the authoritarian government aside - is perhaps somewhat less instructive than might be obvious.
Singapore is an incredibly densely populated nation. As a result, people live in apartment buildings and, typically, are close to mass transit. By contrast, Canada does have some apartment style accommodation, some of which is close to mass transit, but the majority of residential buildings are either single family homes in the suburbs or apartments which are not close to mass transit. As a result, much of Canada's housing is dependent on vehicular access as a primary feature.
Therefore, I argue that Singapore's situation has a limited number of lessons for Canada; some lessons, I am sure, but a limited number.
And, just to further my point, you reference First Nations housing. Absolutely, I agree that it needs improvement but I absolutely believe that Singapore has virtually no lessons to offer for us to improve housing on First Nations lands.
Man, the piece helps identify the boomers in the comments!
I don't think the term is something to take personally. It acknowledges the fact that a lot of public policy has bent to the interests of baby boomers. Good public policy balances the needs and interests of various groups and aims to maximize the good of everyone. I don't think it's unfair to question policies that strongly benefit one group (older people who bought homes before prices became unreachable, which includes me, even though I'm GenX) over another.
While my rising home equity benefits me personally, I don't think its sustainable and I don't think it's good for Canada as a whole as it makes housing unaffordable for many. As a citizen, I'd rather see us look at housing as a need to be fulfilled, not an asset class to be protected. That said, I can 'afford' to think that way as I bought my current home a dozen years ago; view the current equity as a bit of an illusion anyway as it feels like a bubble that will eventually burst; and think that even a correction won't likely destroy the 'real' equity I've build by paying off my mortgage. The current situation just isn't sustainable and if the bubble is going to burst, it would be good to rethink what we want next as a country.
Agreed Tony , public policy has been geared toward the aging population, this demographic eagerly gets out and votes. So if a party wishes to stay in power they target their policies towards the voter. Essentially the power of voter will get what they vote for, until the scale tips towards the younger demographic looking for government policies geared towards their needs...I don't see much changing in the near term.
But even if the 20 and 30 somethings get their voice in government, will the government be brave enough to break away from American economic policies. Canada usually follows in lockstep with our neighbours
Seniors just got $500 in the fall just because (even the ones on Dragons' Den). OAS is senior pogey that starts to phase out above $80k income. The average full time income in Canada is only $52k. So the term “vampiric gerontocracy” has legs.
That $500 was ridiculous. I think that you had to be over 75 to receive it, and the people I knew who were reasonably well-off donated their cheques. It was one of those periodic sops that the government tosses to seniors. As far as the OAS goes - I am still working, and there are an awful lot of people who don’t have $80K in annual retirement income. Unless they’re retired pols or civil servants. The term might “have legs” but it’s purpose is only to fuel the flames of inter generational strife. I don’t know when I’ll retire. Supporting my widowed mum and helping my daughter and grandchildren was something I was happy to do, but it put quite a dent in my savings. Many people in my generation are in the same situation.
Really? So you don’t think older people did the same for their families? How is it suppose to fuel the flames of inter generational strife? Speaking of generalizations, your talking as if every older person is wealthy and we are all taking what does not belong to us. Fact, the inflation caused by Government interventions and the destruction of the economy and supply chain, has effected all of us. While many of those who are just surviving due to higher costs and inflation on their pension others may not be better off. Could the $500 have been handed out better, absolutely but that blame belongs to the Government, not the pensioners.
That is not what I meant, and in fact I pointed out that plenty of seniors are not wealthy. I was in fact blaming the government, NOT pensioners - I’d like to see less-affluent seniors receive more help. I take exception to older people being referred to as a “vampiric gerontocracy.” That is what fuels intergenerational strife.
I won’t be renewing, actually. I think that there is a lot of understandable frustration on the part of younger people, and I get that. I also think that my generation *has* been lucky. But the snark about “so you struggled back in the eighties and now you have a net worth of six figures” was a bridge too far. Yes, many of us did struggle. We lost our homes and had children to look after, and it took years to repair credit ratings ruined through no fault of our own. But you know, every generation blames its predecessor - I know I did when I was a teenager. We gain perspective as we get older - but I would never talk about Millennials in such a manner. It’s lousy.
Thank you, Michael. My mother is gone now, and we were lucky to be able to keep her with us almost until the end of her life. I am glad that these are available to people looking after their parents.
It does suggest the political power that accrues to a demographic that actually turns out to vote, though, doesn't it? A younger demographic could do a lot if they could actually be arsed to dedicate 15-30 minutes voting every few years.
What you call "pogey" for seniors is money they put into the CPP through out their working years. They paid into it to collect it at the stage they could no longer work. Its there for that reason as it is for all Canadians. After to you contribute for a life time how about we get rid of it just in time for you to start collecting yours. We can call it pogey you don't deserve.
Many who have saved over and above their CPP are not getting OAS. Those who do would most likely not have any savings of their own. It could end anytime as the government is considering a guaranteed income so if you feel your paying to many taxes now, you have not seen anything yet.
You would be wrong. Your under the impression that Government is here to take care of the people. I am here because I believe if the Government would get out of the way the people could take care of themselves. I don’t believe in free anything as there is no such thing. Everything comes at a cost to the taxpayers. Like I say Government is big, expensive, and incompetent. The less we have the better the whole country is.
OAS is a pretty reasonable program when it's directed as intended: making sure that the elderly can maintain some reasonable minimum living when they're no longer able to work. However, CPP is still a government creature. I've still got doubts about whether CPP will continue in its current form in the future. Government reforms in 1997 put it on a more secure footing, but anything a government can change once it can change again. If a future government decides that CPP assets should be "invested" in some new program or policy, they could easily undermine the current state of the program. Inflation could also hack back the anticipated benefit. I'm GenX and expect to be working for at least another 20 years, but I never put a whole lot of confidence in seeing a return on my CPP contributions.
OAS should be clawed back more agressively from people with substantial asset wealth. For example, no one would qualify if they had more than say $100K in asset wealth
Civil servants have to pay into their pensions monthly and the majority make less than $52,000 a year. The politicians don’t pay into theirs and after four years or more can receive generous pensions. I believe it depends on the positions they held and the length of time in those positions. It’s all covered by the taxpayer. Look at the Governor General who can bill all her expenses along with her generous pension for eternity, apparently. For some anyway.
The amount they pay into their pensions is laughably small considering they could collect 70% of their best 5 years, indexed to inflation for 30 plus years with absolutely no risk. The current value of those pensions is in the 7 figures.
The amount of government under the new regime keeps growing and for each new addition the higher it costs the taxpayer. The elites don’t realize that, as they don’t bother with monetary policies. Only rich people can convey a message like that. I know many city politicians who are getting triple pensions. It’s all forms of government that receive the big money, not the clerk serving you at the front desk. That’s why I say, the less of them, the better off we will all be. The same goes for regulations.
I appreciate your comment, in particular because it leads directly to unnecessary and unhealthy divisiveness (although that may have been the desired intent). The housing topic warrants investigation and discussion, and many of the comments and linked articles here are valuable. The use of a term like “vampiric gerontocracy” however, needlessly distracts, creates confrontation and diminishes the chance for cooperation.
Using such an all encompassing term is also lazy in that it means that discerning more specifically where fault might lie becomes unimportant. How many of those who have fortunately gained a financial advantage might feel about it is also rendered inconsequential. In this regard, I would characterize it as less than responsible journalism.
She made some very fair points, which I appreciated. I also appreciate the frustration of younger people, and am by no means insensible to the difficulties they face. But this must be the third or fourth piece she’s written using the term (she says she’ll continue) and each time, her writing on the topic has become more and more splenetic. It’s her space, and her privilege to write whatever she wants - those of us who object strenuously enough are free to vote with our feet and wallets. It’s a shame, because it’s an important issue.
This is not the first ageist comment made by the author. Our age has little to do with our thinking and our support for government policy. The government created this problem. My millennial daughter purchased a brand new house at the start of the pandemic for an affordable price. She could not afford to purchase the same house now. The last two years changed the market. As the mother of three Millennials I worry all the time about their finances. This at the same time the purchasing power of my retirement savings is declining.
Boy oh boy Jen, that was a joyful read just before the Easter holidays. How about something about the cost of dying for Labour Day. and then the death of Santa Claus in December? It's a good thing you write well.
A good read, apart from the anti-boomer rage. There are a lot of boomers who don't own homes. A lot. The anti-boomer angle takes so much away from your piece, which is that governments don't want to solve the problem.
I love you for stuff like this, Jen. You are brutal and funny and bang on the money. I'm 71. My husband and I bought a home in Toronto in the late eighties. It tripled in value by the time we sold ten years ago and moved into a condo that has doubled again. The only way we could own a home today is by inheriting it.
The people who clean our building and provide security can't afford to live anywhere close. They have to commute forever on lousy transit from apartments in the outer boroughs. It's awful. And yet like you said, we don't want to see its (paper) value crash because if we outlive our savings we're counting on it to afford an apartment where we can pay a college educated former barista to change our Depends.
People like us voted Liberal and NDP. But damned if the left we knew hasn't abandoned the working class for Woke Twitterland, pushing its natural base to the right, then attacking it as racist for voting for the one party that doesn't insult it. The enemy of the poor isn't the rich, it's us comfortably housed, well-intentioned, left-leaning middle class.)
I fully expect that younger generations will soon find a way to relax the rules around assisted dying. "He's been a bit glum all week. Really, doctor, is this any way to live?"
Honestly, my generation lucked into the best time to be alive: We skipped all major wars, got off with a couple of short slumps, and will get to die before the planet incinerates. I feel for you guys. We didn't mean to screw you. But it sure turned out that way.
I share the concern with how ridiculous housing prices have gotten. It's hard to recruit people to work in the Lower Mainland of BC because of the cost of living. However, a few things to consider:
1) Price is a consequence of supply and demand. You can't just claim that housing prices are insane vs. other areas if people are continuing to pay the price. Is Vancouver as dynamic as Manhattan? No. Are people willing to pay the prices to live there? Yes. The price is just a signal indicating the relationship between supply and demand.
2) The demand side of price is affected by the affordability of the house. Crank up interest rates or tighten lending requirements, and you make it more expensive to finance a mortgage. I was just a kid during the 80s, but I remember how stressed out my parents were when they had to service a mortgage at double-digit rates. Lower prices don't necessarily make housing more accessible, unless you're going to pay in cash.
3) Take a look back over time at changes in property prices. A truly dramatic crash in prices is on the order of 30% - that's like the crash in Calgary in 1982. That's about as far as history tells you prices will unwind, short of a massive natural disaster or civilizational collapse. If you couldn't afford a house at 2010 prices, even a massive market crash isn't going to do much for you.
4) The proportion of Canadians who own their homes has steadily increased over time, including with the crazy spike in prices over the past couple of years. The fact that this number isn't falling suggests we're not quite at the catastrophic point this piece suggests. It also supports the idea that there's going to be little support for collapsing the real estate market. There aren't a lot of areas of Canadian public life where you find a supermajority like that on one side of an issue.
There is no easy fix here. The solution is building enough stuff to slow or stop the increase in prices. That's not going to change things overnight, though. Getting to this point took sustained screwing with zoning, the housing market, and the cost of real estate transactions. The supply of housing needs to at least match population growth, or else economics tells you prices will just keep climbing in perpetuity.
Nope. There is a lot of flailing here. Focus. Municipalities are the problem. It’s a supply issue called banana: build absolutely nothing anywhere’s anytime. City councils and their supporters the citizen groups block, delay, prevent and obstruct new housing. I get your frustration. What I don’t get is why we put up with it.
Of course. That is correct. However, been there done that. So if you are correct, then we the people really want our messed up housing market. I don’t believe that we really want the mess we are in.
The results bear out what the electorate wants. Unhappy about it? Start a petition. Run for Office. Or move. It’s very Canadian to bitch and moan. Maybe that’s the real problem…we whine and do nothing and then turn right around and demand government “fix” the problem they were responsible for creating in the first place. It’s tiresome.
I believe we should focus our attention on the need for housing at the local, municipal level. More affordable, smaller bungalows with green spaces for socializing and the environment.
A few facts: Canada’s annual mortality rate is approximately 300,000. The birth rate is approximately 360,000. Immigration is between 400,000 and 500,000 people annually.
Housing starts are now between 240,000 and 260,000 per year.
Boomers are the ones in the mortality bracket - their homes go on the market at that time and their kids get to split the proceeds to buy their homes (which are likely to be multi-family rather than single).
Boomers are not having children nor are they demanding increased immigration.
You are caught in a supply shortage and your solution is simply to devalue the market thinking it will decrease demand.
Most cities have limited amounts of re-developable land and the cost of permits, construction and supporting infra-structure continue to inflate - you may be able to house more people with increased density but such housing is still expensive (affordable is brought about by subsidy only).
As boomers die off and as rezoning prohibits single family homes, densification with continue to increase - driven by population growth.
Dense pack is the order of the day for Canadian cities but don’t kid yourself that it will make living less expensive.
Lose your resentment towards boomers - they’re on their way out.
It’s the new arrivals that you’ll be competing with.
Marylou, I respectfully disagree with a significant portion of your comment.
First off, you say that government at all three levels is an impediment. I absolutely agree but you must remember that the government is us. Who votes those b*****ds in/out? Why, you and me. The point is, get off your butt and demand that those governments change the zoning, environmental, etc. rules as appropriate. Get your friends to similarly write letters - what an old fashioned concept - make telephone calls, hector your elected representatives, etc. Don't be passive.
Inflation is clearly as result of our governments' mismanagement, in particular, the federal government. Building costs go up and they go down; that is a fact of life and we cannot do much about that issue but we can pressure the rule makers to not require palaces level building codes.
You blame Blackrock, et al. I have no brief for Blackrock et al purchase rental housing but do not affect the supply of new housing.
You talk about illegal activities including money laundering. Again, pressure your authorities to deal with illegalities. Some things are simply: the rules are pretty clear but why are the politicians allowing them to be flouted.
So, overall, I respectfully advise you to not be passive but to be active to ensure that rules are followed and that rules are modified where they are too restrictive and result in damage (e.g. many of the silly zoning rules).
I am just saying these are some of the issues. It certainly is not due to the baby boomers. Most baby boomers watch their pennies pretty close and do not want more taxes. I am not passive in anyway and vote at every election. First I make sure who and what I am voting for before placing a ballot in a box.
Its not a simple as it sounds to get things changed or we would not be in this mess in the first place. This has been a long standing issue with many attempts to change it and yet it has only gotten worse. In my books Governments and their regulations are most of the problem. We need less of them and more developers.
The Cullen Commission is for BC but the same thing is happening across Canada and in the major cities like Toronto and neighboring places. Canada has become one of the biggest countries for Drug gangs and money laundering due to little restriction. Much of it is put into real estate to clean it. It has caused a fair amount of the increase in housing costs. Sam Cooper has a book out on it called Wilfull Blindness. He has been reporting on the story and the Commission. I also just read on Blacklock's that there is intelligence reports of gangs and mafias infiltrating City Halls across Canada as well. I just read that the other day. I say the reason things are so bad is everyone's fault for not paying attention to what is happening around them, in their communities, and with every level of Government before they vote. They listen to the promises but do not look at their track record. Government at its best is expensive and incompetent.
I have read your comment with interest and I cannot criticize it.
What I can say is that simply voting is insufficient. As you know, we vote but the politicians ignore we the voters. They pay attention to lobby groups and, particularly, those who give money (all legal - !!!!! - to be sure - maybe / maybe not).
Ultimately, what that means is that you have to be a thorn in the side of the politicians. You need to write letters (old fashioned concept that), perhaps send emails, etc.
[Politicians used to say that they paid more attention to letter writers than phone calls because if you took the time to write a letter you were more serious and interested in the subject.]
Personally, I do send letters and, occasionally emails to politicians. I find it interesting the number of times I am ignored and the number of times I get replies, sometimes simple form letters but sometimes thoughtful responses. The best responses are where a representative explains why they disagree with me. That I can work with! I then reconsider my position and perhaps ask the politician to reconsider theirs. Sometimes it works.
But, always, always, you need to do the legwork. You cannot simply vote and call it a day, hoping for the best. Remember, the government R us, so bad government decisions are our own fault.
[Except for that gang in Ottawa, which is NOT, NOT, NOT my government!!!]
I agree with you one hundred percent. I have written letters on mass and knowing now realize it is better to do it through snail mail. I think they ignore email letters. I have attended rallies and meetings and wrote many letters to get our hospital expansion back on the list. I am in no way passive. I have been loud and proud about most things government as I am, like you, not impressed with the Liberal/NDP Government of Canada. I always speak out, much to many folks chagrin. Lol
First, I commend you on speaking out. Always, in all ways, we must do that.
As for email, I have been surprised by how often a thoughtful (my conceit, you know) email is answered. Frequently with a form email, "Thanks for ...., etc." but surprisingly often with some commentary meaning that they have read the email. But, the best (again, my conceit) is a well written, thoughtful snail mail missive.
Accurate! No one wants to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Erin O'Toole during the last election stated that immigration should be based on what the provinces wanted, not a federal quota. Unfortunately, it is buried in the archives and forgotten at this point.
You make a good point Ross. The 401,000 permanent residents that immigrated here last year didn't automatically get a house but probably would like to eventually. I hope many of them are tradespeople that we need to build the houses that they and many other Canadians want.
Hi Jen - generally I agree with your articles but in this case you’ve chosen to “toss raw meat out to the angry crowd” for some reason - which is disappointing. Hopefully you’ll find your usual insightful observations in the next piece.
What a stinging article! Imagine my shock to learn that my contemporaries and I are part of this vampiric gerontology. I mean, really?
Of course I feel badly for my kids and their contemporaries as they try to buy their first homes. It’s almost impossible right now. But other generations have faced huge challenges as well, lest we forget.
Can’t wait for your follow-up article on the cost of health care to keep the vampiric gerontocracy alive and well as they feed off their offspring.
Maybe we should all just jump off a cliff when we hit age 75? Problem solved.
<rant> Believe it or not, all we Boomers were your age at one time. We couldn't afford those 2-storey brick houses on tree-lined streets in downtown neighbourhoods a 10 minute walk to the market, so we bought 1,200 sq.ft. frame bungalows in the suburbs and had to commute to work.
Now you're complaining because you have to spread further out, and you're threatening to take over our municipal councils so you can destroy our self-landscaped neighbourhoods. We didn't make our houses so valuable -- it's you and your desire to have them.
You want to live close to where you work, but you work in the downtown of large cities because we now have a "service economy". Grow up, stop complaining, and stop buying goods manufactured offshore.
BTW, you can solve the “vampiric gerontocracy” by putting us on icebergs when we hit a certain age. </rant>
It doesn't HAVE to be this way, of course, but it would require the Young to show up and vote, and be as organized as the Old. Which does not seem to be in the offing.
You note the need for personal responsibility. Quite a concept that.
Please note that I am not being sarcastic when I make the above comment.
Ultimately, many of the things - not all, but many - preventing increased supply are the result of choices in favor of the status quo. Roy, you and I are approximately the same age; we are retired and have purchase our home(s) many years ago. In my case, I am fortunate in that my mortgage was paid some years ago; I will arbitrarily (with no specific knowledge, you understand) assume that is your case. That means that you and I are in the cohort that pushes for zoning to favor single family homes, disallow densification, restrict certain transit choices, etc., etc.
In order for additional supply to occur it is important that there be thoughtful densification, thoughtful multi-family dwellings, etc. In other words, "you and I" [i.e. we as symbols of our generation] need to work to allow more housing so that our children and grandchildren can benefit.
Many of these NIMBY like things are the result of government but remember that government R us.
Always had the attached suite, so we were 1.5 density, if not a duplex, for 30 yrs, then retired to an 18-unit coop condo. Couldn't be happier, either. Gaining rather than losing friends in retirement!
Empty nesters aren't just floorspace hogs with too much maintenance worries; they're nuts.
I have the (good / mis?) fortune to be in my early seventies. That means that I have seen at least one or two things; I even wrote a (highly dreadful) university paper on the topic of housing in about 1970. Among the things that I have seen and recall is that Trudeau 1 dealt with / allegedly tried to deal with the housing issue - there, see, I didn't call it a "problem."
Trudeau 1 didn't succeed, just as Trudeau 2 won't succeed. Now, having said that, one thing that Trudeau 1 (with those number, aren't you just expecting 3 to be on the horizon? Gawd!!!) did was to introduce MURBs - multiple unit residential buildings. Now, those weren't new types of housing but the tried and true townhouses, high rises, etc. What was new was the financing, which allowed fast write off for taxes for the owners. By definition MURBs were rental housing but they quickly moved from the rental market to being owner occupied. Ultimately, Trudeau 1 eliminated MURBs as a financing tool because it became too popular and the government saw too much tax revenue deferred.
The point is, as near as I can recall, that was the closest any government has come to finding a way to successfully create additional supply: they created the ability for the marketplace to finance additional supply.
I am not saying that we need to bring back the MURB rules but I am saying that the federal levers are very few. The MURB rules worked because they were entirely under federal control - i.e. the Income Tax Act. Pretty much all other claimed "solutions" require extensive provincial and/or municipal co-operation to change zoning, increase density, etc., etc., etc. In short, the status quo - i.e. the home owners' self interest - is highly likely to ensure that there are no such changes.
The best that I can suggest to those who want to buy a home is for all housing aspirants to clearly, emphatically and continuously tell their parents / grandparents / aunts / uncles / etc. that "they" (i.e. parents et al) are the reason that said aspirants cannot acquire a home because "they" prevent zoning changes, cause governments to require more and more in terms of building codes, etc.
So, the supply side is really where it must change but I am not hopeful. The federal government has very few powers to assist in the supply side and truly, with the bunch that we have now - and prospectively - I simply don't see the imagination to allow increased supply.
The demand side keeps going up. Natural growth of the population, immigration of 400,000 per year and the ongoing pressures of life (for example, divorce sees one housing unit become two housing units needed), etc. all keep demand increasing. Note that I have not discussed foreign ownership, vacant houses owned by "others," etc. simply because, while I do not deny that they have an effect, it is my opinion that the overall effect of those issues is entirely nominal and is used by politicians to deflect their own failings of policy and imagination.
So, what have I done? I helped one of my children with a down payment; I expect that when my other adult child is in a position to purchase a home I will get a similar request. Could I afford the first one? Yes, I was working and could manage that hit. Can I afford the second one? I simply don't know as I am now retired and I don't have the same capacity.
The point is, however, that my generation has benefited so we have to be part of the solution, even when it hurts.
Doug, you are right, MURBs definitely had problems. What they did do, however, was to get capital to allow housing to be built and insufficient supply of housing is a real problem right now.
They were a gimmick that was encouraged through the Income Tax Act and gimmicks encouraged by the ITA often produce - at best!!! - mixed results.
The point, however, is not that we should re-introduce MURBs but that they did represent different thinking. Good thinking? Perhaps not, but it was much more creative than a great deal than the (lack of) thinking that is being done today.
You say, "... lots of shoddy product and investment scams ..." I agree that some of the housing was poorly built but some of it was well built and is still good quality housing over forty years later. Investment scams? I am a retired CPA and, yes, I did see investment scams in that period that involved MURBs but I also saw a lot of good quality projects.
So, I simply use MURBs as an example of how we need to think differently when it comes to increasing the supply of housing.
I feel for the Millennial angst, but Jen only touched on another important point...all the capital trapped in housing does nothing to promote productivity growth which is the only source of real income growth. Think what could be accomplished if some of that money were invested in tech startups or plant and equipment.
The government will fight a housing crash because the illusion of housing wealth papers over the government's complete ineptitude at promoting productivity growth.
Wow Jen. This is an angry piece. I love love your writing style so this was thoroughly entertaining. I think your anti aged theme is unconstructive, and misguided however. That aside I agree with your thesis. No level of government wants housing to be affordable. If they did they would allow it to function like a proper market without all the incentives you mention. Everyone thinks owning a big house is a sacred right. It’s not. If it was a true market, without propped up lending and incentives it would correctly sharply and housing would be so much cheaper
You have repeatedly used the phrase “vampiric gerontocracy” in a number if your pieces and I’m sick of it. Many of my contemporaries lost their homes in the early eighties, and it took years to rebuild their lives. Many of us helped support our own parents and children simultaneously, and a good many more of us do not have pensions. I’ve been an entrepreneur most of my life, and am one of those people. My home and what investments I’ve managed to accrue are what I hope will allow me to look after myself when I am too old to work. You seem to be under the misapprehension that all Boomers are insanely wealthy. They aren’t. All levels of government have colluded in creating the housing mess, and stoking inter generational warfare is imo entirely unconstructive. Enough with your repetitive “vampiric gerontocracy” nonsense - this is one darling which you should have killed some time ago.
You struggled in the 80s and now I bet you enjoy net wealth well into the six figures. And you earned every penny of it, eh?
Boomers are, statistically speaking, the wealthiest demographic in the country. And the utterly historic run up of house prices -- wildly beyond what could possibly be justified by inflation -- is part and parcel with that utterly uncontroversial observation. You, struggled, worked hard AND you also won the demographic lottery -- a bad stretch in the '80s aside. In addition to the human struggles we all face, you were also very, very lucky. Failing to acknowledge the latter half comes across to the younger among as as profoundly oblivious and entitled.
What I don't understand is why Boomers believe that they, and they uniquely, ought to be protected from these facts. Why is it that you allow your personal feelings to be caught up in statements about intergenerational macroeconomic factors?
Your generation's accumulated real estate wealth is coming at the expense of younger poorer generations who will not have the same opportunities that you have had. That's just the reality of the situation.
To observe this is not a personal attack. You didn't do anything wrong, you simply participated in the economy you had at the time. You may be poor and not own a home at all -- that says nothing one way or another about the intergenerational issues at play. It's not about you as an individual, nor about your personal triumphs or hardships. I'm talking about the financial impact your generation has had, and the situation that my generation now has to cope with as a result. JG
tl;dr: I'm going to continue to refer to Canada as a vampiric gerontocracy, because it is. If that hurts your feelings, perhaps you might want to ask yourself why you're taking it personally.
I’m sure you will. After all, you use the phrase over and over again. I have no trouble admitting that (except for many of us losing our homes in the eighties due to 22% mortgage rates) my generation has been lucky. I don’t take it personally, but I think you could have made many of your otherwise excellent points without making such a generalisation about an entire generation. I don’t do that with Millennials or any other group of people. Every single generation has its challenges. I’m from Vancouver, and the insane housing prices are largely because the province and city turned a blind eye to the money laundering of Beijing’s elites. I could never afford to live there now. I know that you will do as you please, but perhaps you might consider why you’re so devoted to such a vituperative phrase. Pax.
You've been lucky and the government has done all it can to support your luck with all its might. And now the intolerable whining has begun...
It sure has. But the “intolerable whining” isn’t coming from me lol…
“ You have repeatedly used the phrase “vampiric gerontocracy” in a number if your pieces and I’m sick of it…” Blah blah blah…your words, right?
Shelley, I lived in Vancouver for 51 years and enjoyed fully paid home ownership at an early age and before I had a good job. But I also got out of the housing market in Vancouver and Toronto just before prices went crazy. Unlike you, I'm not whining about my situation and I am not blaming Beijing and money laundering for the absurd prices across all of Canada. Prices are not just ridiculous in Vancouver and Toronto. I also never had children so have been paying for other people's children all my life. Again, I'm not whining about it. I chose to grow up and accept all the things I had and did not have control over in my life.
Also, my grandparents lived much humbler and harder lives than I ever have. I never heard one word of complaint or victimhood from them!
I am sorry that you think I’m “whining” about my personal situation, about which I actually have no complaints at all. I do not dispute that my generation has been lucky. I completely understand the frustration felt by young people (I don’t think that they’re “whining” either). I think that using the term “vampiric gerontocracy” is completely unconstructive for purposes of discussion in the same way that I don’t fancy the term “Generation Slack” used for Gen X people. What a paragon of virtue you are, too! Very impressive.
Housing is but one aspect of "vampiric gerontocracy". Other manifestations include:
-allowing government to fund anything other than capital out of long term debt
-defined benefit pensions
-union imposed seniority rules
-Keynesian responses to unemployment
Housing receives the attention as it is more emotional
You blame Boomers for the debt? When the last boomer pm was in power the debt was $628B and it's $1.050T. Unless we were executives or civil servants we didn't get defined benefit pensions. They were converted in the 80's to DB plans. Instead of blaming boomers for union seniority rules (which they are guilty of) you could blame boomers for shipping union jobs out of the country. Boomer government gave the unemployed benefits. So while boomers made many bad choices (every generation does) I still don't see where the vampiric label fits.
I'm blaming all voters who support deficit financing. Boomers seem to have particular attraction to Trudeau 1.0 and 2.0, the two PM's who ramped up program spending
Not this boomer :)
Your description of Canada as a "vampiric gerontocracy" is of course correct.
But, as well as house prices, you should consider Covid. Essentially the only people at risk from Covid are Baby Boomers, and for them we destroyed a generation's speech development, schooling, social lives, and financial prospects, with our extreme Covid response.
We have forced millions of young people to get vaccinated, despite very clear evidence that the shots are net harmful to them. Many young men are showing impaired heart function 6-8 months after their initial diagnosis of myocarditis. The fact that the shots do nothing to stop transmission, and so forcing the young to take them didn't even help the Boomers, is mere icing on the cake.
There is rock solid evidence of large increases in mortality for people under 45, which are not caused by Covid. Whether you attribute these deaths to vaccine adverse events or lockdowns, they are sacrifices on the altar of the Baby Boomers. Our Covid response has cost far more life years than it saved, and far more than were lost to Covid itself. "Vampiric" is only barely a metaphor.
I, and many of our generation argued against locking the world down (many tweets if you're interested). Many of us were more concerned about the effects on our children and grandchildren than on the danger to ourselves. I know my in-laws in retirement homes understood that we wouldn't be coming for their own safety. We got them an iPad and internet and the staff showed them how to zoom. They understood, we understood.
The government on the other hand would could not stomach the daily death count and lost their minds. NOT OUR FAULT! People are still calling for lockdowns and it ain't old people.
I think Jen's phrase means that Canada is run by (or for) elderly vampires, not that every single elderly person is a vampire. The elderly opposed to lockdowns are definitely not vampires or, sadly, part of the -ocracy.
Well the boomers don't have the co-Prime Ministers or the former leader of the opposition or most of the Premiers. The country isn't run by elderly vampires but the Laurentian elites. Those Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto politicians, business CEO's, bureaucrats and academics.
Whose blood are we sucking. And when you say "you earned every penny of it" I say yes. In the same way anyone smart enough to have bought MSFT or AMZN or FB or GOOGL earned it. We gave up lots of the luxuries to invest in paying off our mortgages. And we did things like paying for our own childrens' care. Now I pay for other peoples grandchildren while I help out with my own. Just WHAT do you want from us? 35,000 of us died from COVID and that didn't put a dent in the problem. Maybe we aren't the problem.
You don't need $MSFT or $AMZN stock to live. You do need shelter. That's the difference.
If you'd bought the right stocks at the right time you could afford shelter :)
Try telling that to a 21 year old. Now you're just trolling
People are taking it personally because you made it personal.
Almost every response is how one Boomer or another paid so much, worked so hard, helped their kids or grandkids, survived one thing or another, in other words personal. You say it's not a personal attack, that Boomers did nothing wrong, it's just the inter-generational, financial impacts that you and your cohort now need to cope with. Well, yeah, that's how it works. No one said it would be fair. Why are you not pissed at the Gen Xs who have been the largest beneficiary of Boomer wealth to date? And they are still out there, nose to the grindstone, doing their best for their Millennial and Z kids.
Sorry Jen, name calling completely negates the very good points you made. No one is talking about them though. But take heart. The "pig in the python" is slowly being digested, the vampires will step into sunlight. You might think about reno's. All those old houses will need upgrading.
Baby boomers put $1 in the bank in the 60's and it turned into $1M 40 years later. You have lived through the most accelerated growth period in human history. It had NOTHING to do with you and your "so-called" skills. You got lucky. Face it.
Yes, of course, we all had money in the bank and just watched it grow. I have millions of $, I just don't think you are worth sharing it with.
Why are you so bitter? No one had a crystal ball that said invest in real estate or invest in tech stocks, or only have one, maybe 2 kids because the cost of university is going to skyrocket like everything else. Some people started a rock and roll band and did ok with that, others did other things and again yes we all put our dollars in a savings account or CSB or whatever we did and we made out like bandits (not). Until the hot water tank blew and needed replacing. Then it was the roof. Not that the shingles were so expensive but the labour, oy vey! Many of us were very skilled at what we did and we loved what we did and lived an idyllic life of one car, one landline, one TV set, mowing the grass on Saturdays, hibachis on the patio, Star Trek (original) on Tuesday nights, and Beaver Cleaver lived on the corner.
So the saving accounts were dipped into because who knew we were going to need millions of $ for our whiny dependents.
Some families broke up and more often than not mom got the kids. A man's financial worth would rise more than 30%, I think, I could be wrong on that number. But a woman's financial worth invariably plummeted plus she's the sole support of however many kids they had. Banks, doctors, and bosses, all had a Boomer guy attitude towards women. Try to open a bank account in your own name without a parent's signature (at age 30), if you were a separated or divorced Boomer mom. Doctors would ask for permission slips from your husband and that's when you were still married to the bum. Bosses! Well, bosses... women are still only getting about 80% of the wages or salaries that men get. But yeah, we were Boomers. Freedom 55 and a 40' yacht.
We had it good. We partied and smoked and drank and danced and for a while, we really thought we were going to change the world. I guess we actually did because there are just so damned many of us and the "pig in the python" isn't half through.
All I can tell you Tara (for the novel?) is suck it up. Come up with a better way if you don't like how it is now. Jen has many good ideas, she's obviously spent some time thinking on the topic as do many other people posting here. Don't ask the real estate industry or government or banks to do it for you. Or get into gov and make a change from within. Pouting, whining, complaining, and dissing someone for LUCK does not work. Look at what you are doing with your expendable income and like Boomers before you tighten your belt. But with a little bit of luck, you might score something with a roof and you can lord it over all your friends.
The whining is coming from your corner Lou, not mine. I fully agree with what Jen says - all of it and “bitter” doesn’t even begin to describe the contempt I have for your generation. The vampiric gerontocracy is appropriate, as we’ve lived in the shadow of Boomers sucking the very lifeblood out of society with the shrill entitlement voice of, “I deserve it!” which I never ever heard once, in any generation prior to yours. Backpeddle and whine all you want. We’re not buying it anymore.
You seem puzzled why a boomer may take being called a vampire personally. Other than Scary Garry or The Count on Sesame Street I struggle to think of any case where that term is used as a term of endearment.
100%. Boom.
I know eh? The darn old people complaining because they bought their own houses and paid for their own daycare and dental care and drugs. Why should the young have to pay for that shit. Old rich people owe to the young.
I already have dense housing and gov't subsidized housing in my neighborhood. I didn't fight either. A drop in 10% means more to my next generation than it does to me. Sure I could borrow less against my house but otherwise - no effect.
Doddering burdens!! 😂
"I don't think it's a case of hurt feelings. It's that many in our generation feel unfairly targeted and, no surprise, we don't like it."
So...it literally is just a case of hurt feelings, then.
Line Editor - i.e. Jen:
As with the column itself, this response is well written and thoughtful.
I am in my early seventies and, yes, I have been fortunate to benefit from increased real estate pricing. In my case (I live in Calgary), my house value has not increased anywhere near as much as it has in such wondrous (!) places like the center of the universe in TO or in Vancouver but, still, I am up about 2.4 times over the 30 years that I have lived in this house Certainly inflation is a part of that and I make no apology for that but simple appreciation that I did not earn is also a large part and, while I don't apologize for that appreciation, I do recognize that it comes with responsibilities.
I have helped one of my adult children to purchase his first house (son and spouse are now on house number three!!) and I expect that I will get a call from my other adult child to assist when she gets to the point that she tries to acquire a house - I am really dreading that because as a retiree my resources are much more limited than previously but I do have a responsibility.
So, the point is, I was lucky and I need to find a way to assist my one child to herself become lucky in terms of housing. To put this in generational terms, my generation - the baby boomers - has been lucky in many, many ways; we must assist AT LEAST our next generation in moving along in their lives.
I leave you with the only life philosophy to which I subscribe (ignoring the concept of religion which is personal to everyone). My job in life is to, as best I can, raise my children to be good citizens and to assist my children in raising their children to be good citizens. That is the basis upon which I say that we as baby boomers must assist our children.
Bless you. The thing that concerns me about kind parents like yourself, however, is that it creates a real distortion between the families who can afford to help their kids out and the families that cannot. This cannot have good long term effects. JG
Jen:
First off, thank you for your kind words. Now, allow me to put them aside.
As I have said, my job was / is to raise my kids to be good citizens and then to assist them to raise their kids to be good citizens.
Clearly, my age group has been fortunate. Just as clearly, my wife and I, specifically, have been fortunate; not wildly so but we have been fortunate - I was able to retire when I hit 68, after all, something that not everyone can / could do. Our assistance to our kids continues in a variety of small ways that are ultimately oriented in making it easier for them to raise their children, our grandchildren. We simply do not have the resources anymore (retirement has pitfalls!) to make large cash advances, etc. but we can do other things to assist.
What I must say clearly is that it is paramount that we, the older generation, continue to contribute to our communities. For some fortunate folks they can contribute financially to their children and grandchildren. My wife and I can make a small contribution to our kids' ongoing issues but, really, the magnitude of the problem is getting outstandingly outlandish [pretty good alliteration, huh?] and of a magnitude that we cannot solve. That means that we will have to find some (possibly imaginative) alternatives to provide that assistance.
The job of parents, to get their own kids started and to assist with the grandkids.
So - pardon me, please, please - stuff the "Bless you." I do not mean to be disrespectful; I simply note that, as a parent, my job description hasn't really changed. To me, my wife put it best: she says that she has stopped being a parent and now works at being a grandparent. In other words, we are simply continue to try to do our job, the one that we signed up for when we decided to have children; we are / were fortunate that things worked out modestly well for us so it is mandatory that we pass along some element of that good fortune.
I agree with your concern. That is a real issue. The growing wealth disparity is something that never ends well.
We are the wealthiest because we bought our house. I get it . As with Shelley I get no corporate pension and live on savings. I bought my first house at 18% interest in Alberta just before Trudeau the Elder inflicted the province with the NEP. I lost all my equity and had to start over. We never had the zero interest rates. We did without the Euro vacations and taking the kids to Disney land and bought used cars so we could make mortgage payments. And you are full of shit if you don't think we want houses for all. Do you think we want our children in our house or without one of their own?
I realize that the boomers in Rosedale and Forest Hills etc don't want high density but I don't think many of us real people are against it. These are also the boomers who have all the wealth. It is not evenly distributed amongst all boomers. We borrow against our fabulous wealth to help out our kids with their mortgages and to pay for our parents in retirement homes.
Instead of dwelling on the house we bought look at Boomer median income. We are well under the 25-34 year cohort in income.
You might want to look at the Corporations who are buying up homes. This will cause rises in home prices, rises in rents and they will be actively lobbying against any proposed solutions.
We could build more homes without tax giveaways. Get rid of stupid regulations, the NIMBYism and if then market needs more skilled workers -- we know where we can get them. The world has plenty.
I don't think for one moment that Boomers don't want their kids in nice houses. I just don't think most of you would be willing to eat a 30-40% loss in the value of your house in order to ensure that would happen. And who could blame you? Not me. JG
That's about what it cost me in "gifts" so the kids could afford their houses. If we got any interest on our money if we sold, we would consider selling out and living in different accommodations. Add to that the monthly expense of our in-laws in a retirement home and I don't feel all that wealthy. Again I ask, what you would have us do?
You hit on a point that hasn't been mentioned so far: risk vs. reward. Millennials have only seen a housing market on an upward trajectory. In the 80's and 90's sinking money into a house was risky. I'm about 10 years younger than our Line Editor, so I'm clearly not a Boomer. When I bought a house (at less than $50 per sq ft backing onto a large park in Calgary) as an early twentysomething, friends and family thought I was nuts. My perception of risk was such that I worked my ass off (three jobs) and lived frugally (no vacations, no restautant meals, no cable TV, minimally insured junker car, wardrobe from Costco) to pay off the house in 4 years as I was scared silly of the prospect of rising interest rates.
That being said, once the Greenspan Put become official policy post 1997 Asian financial crisis, the risk of owning assets like housing substantially declined, yet the returns have amplified. The root cause is actually a US Fed mandate, both explicit and implicit, to manage unemployment rates and asset values.
What could could Canada do:
-narrow BoC mandate to only only target inflation. Central Banks should have absolutely no Keynesian role
-at least strike to inquiry to investigatevmoney laundering in Canadian real estate
-lower immigration quotas to reduce demand. This will mean reforming government pension schemes (ex. converting public sector to DC and pushing OAS and CPP eligibility a few years past 65). Unfortunately the Trudeau government took the regressive steps of cancelling the previously announced phase-in of OAS eligibility to 67, increased CPP and relaxed the Harper era vice grips on public sector compensation
-wind down CHMC. Banks and homeowners should not be shielded from market risk
Don’t make assumptions about the net worth of others, Jen.
Jen may be right about the boomer demographics. They do collectively hold lots of wealth. Oddly, the longer people have worked and earned, the more assets they've accumulated. Many of these assets appreciate over time. Jen may be too young or inexperienced to understand the house-rich, cash-poor that many boomers are living. Luckily we didn't have to spend $100/month on phones, $100 a month to watch TV, $100/month to play online games and $50 a crack to read decent journalism :).
I totally agree with you Jen. There were also lots of Boomers who worked in good paying union jobs who benefited.
I am all for good-paying union jobs.
I was thinking along the lines of how often what unions, the members of unions, did for all of us. Yes, strong arm tactics have been used, but what options when it's big money you are going up against? But it seems to me that most people are perfectly happy to negate what unions have done for them and they now take it all for granted.
For instance, a 7 day work week, a 40 hour week, stat holidays, the end to child labour, safer working conditions, the right to refuse unsafe working conditions, gender equality, equal pay for equal work, the right to know about unsafe conditions (bc you can't refuse them if you don't know it's unsafe), mat and pat leave, pensions, sick leave....
Many think that all of these and more would have simply happened anyway but that's not so. For years I've been watching government and corp interests, hell, religious ones too gnaw away at what people fought and died for (that all important phrase). All for the principle of human dignity at work.
I know that unions are only as popular as their last work action be it railways, hospital workers, nurses and/or the ones that do the mopping up or teachers, just listen to the crap loaded on teachers should they walk out. How many kids should be in a class room? How many kids without English should be in that classroom? Teachers get the summer off. How tough can it be to babysit a bunch of snot nosed kids every day? Most teachers in our public school system have educations far in advance what most doctors may have. But hey, why do they need or want a union?
Ok, that's my personal buggaboo for today. I'm rambling on like ML. And May Day is coming up soon.
Perfect
Yes Boomers have been the beneficiary of the housing bubble, but there are lots of enablers. Real estate agents, banks, brokers, lawyers, municipalities to name a few have all feasted on the explosion of real estate valuations, many probably most of those people aren't boomers. So to dump the blame for this insanity on a single generation is not only factually incorrect it's kind of pointless .. it's everyone's problem now. The big question is what should this rube goldberg layer cake of a democracy that we have actually do about it? I'm an Ottawa resident and I think one thing thing came abundantly clear from the chaos of the occupation/protest the federal-provincial-municipal triumvirate isn't making good decisions right know. If we can't solve something as simple as removing a couple of hundred ill informed idiots from the downtown core of our national capital how are we going to resolve something as complex and big as the housing asset bubble without blowing up the life savings of our biggest cohort just as they are retiring? While it's fashionable to pile on the boomers, that (i.e. my) generation is spending a lot of that accumulated wealth right now trying to keep their kids in school and co-signing their mortgages. As a matter of policy we need start looking as housing as an essential good rather than an investment lottery, and take a hard look at among other things the tax code that encourage that behavior.
Casey I agree. But to be fair to our First Nations people I think we should start with giving them clean drinking water, then start tackling their deplorable housing conditions. II can't believe we spend billions of dollars on First Nations issues and we still can't give them potable water. I realize Singapore's government operates more authoritarian, but how does size a small land mass provide affordable rental and self-owned government housing? Each development contains all the daily services you need as part of the complex.
Sandra, I absolutely agree that potable water on first nations territory is an essential item. If you remember, our current Prime Idiot stated that he was all over the first nations issues when he was also our feminist PM in 2015. Of course, he has proven himself a liar on both counts. But, as they say, I digress.
I agree that other nations can provide lessons to us in very many ways, possibly including housing. I would note, however, that to look at Singapore - the nature of the authoritarian government aside - is perhaps somewhat less instructive than might be obvious.
Singapore is an incredibly densely populated nation. As a result, people live in apartment buildings and, typically, are close to mass transit. By contrast, Canada does have some apartment style accommodation, some of which is close to mass transit, but the majority of residential buildings are either single family homes in the suburbs or apartments which are not close to mass transit. As a result, much of Canada's housing is dependent on vehicular access as a primary feature.
Therefore, I argue that Singapore's situation has a limited number of lessons for Canada; some lessons, I am sure, but a limited number.
And, just to further my point, you reference First Nations housing. Absolutely, I agree that it needs improvement but I absolutely believe that Singapore has virtually no lessons to offer for us to improve housing on First Nations lands.
Man, the piece helps identify the boomers in the comments!
I don't think the term is something to take personally. It acknowledges the fact that a lot of public policy has bent to the interests of baby boomers. Good public policy balances the needs and interests of various groups and aims to maximize the good of everyone. I don't think it's unfair to question policies that strongly benefit one group (older people who bought homes before prices became unreachable, which includes me, even though I'm GenX) over another.
While my rising home equity benefits me personally, I don't think its sustainable and I don't think it's good for Canada as a whole as it makes housing unaffordable for many. As a citizen, I'd rather see us look at housing as a need to be fulfilled, not an asset class to be protected. That said, I can 'afford' to think that way as I bought my current home a dozen years ago; view the current equity as a bit of an illusion anyway as it feels like a bubble that will eventually burst; and think that even a correction won't likely destroy the 'real' equity I've build by paying off my mortgage. The current situation just isn't sustainable and if the bubble is going to burst, it would be good to rethink what we want next as a country.
Agreed Tony , public policy has been geared toward the aging population, this demographic eagerly gets out and votes. So if a party wishes to stay in power they target their policies towards the voter. Essentially the power of voter will get what they vote for, until the scale tips towards the younger demographic looking for government policies geared towards their needs...I don't see much changing in the near term.
But even if the 20 and 30 somethings get their voice in government, will the government be brave enough to break away from American economic policies. Canada usually follows in lockstep with our neighbours
Seniors just got $500 in the fall just because (even the ones on Dragons' Den). OAS is senior pogey that starts to phase out above $80k income. The average full time income in Canada is only $52k. So the term “vampiric gerontocracy” has legs.
That $500 was ridiculous. I think that you had to be over 75 to receive it, and the people I knew who were reasonably well-off donated their cheques. It was one of those periodic sops that the government tosses to seniors. As far as the OAS goes - I am still working, and there are an awful lot of people who don’t have $80K in annual retirement income. Unless they’re retired pols or civil servants. The term might “have legs” but it’s purpose is only to fuel the flames of inter generational strife. I don’t know when I’ll retire. Supporting my widowed mum and helping my daughter and grandchildren was something I was happy to do, but it put quite a dent in my savings. Many people in my generation are in the same situation.
Really? So you don’t think older people did the same for their families? How is it suppose to fuel the flames of inter generational strife? Speaking of generalizations, your talking as if every older person is wealthy and we are all taking what does not belong to us. Fact, the inflation caused by Government interventions and the destruction of the economy and supply chain, has effected all of us. While many of those who are just surviving due to higher costs and inflation on their pension others may not be better off. Could the $500 have been handed out better, absolutely but that blame belongs to the Government, not the pensioners.
That is not what I meant, and in fact I pointed out that plenty of seniors are not wealthy. I was in fact blaming the government, NOT pensioners - I’d like to see less-affluent seniors receive more help. I take exception to older people being referred to as a “vampiric gerontocracy.” That is what fuels intergenerational strife.
Amen to that.
I won’t be renewing, actually. I think that there is a lot of understandable frustration on the part of younger people, and I get that. I also think that my generation *has* been lucky. But the snark about “so you struggled back in the eighties and now you have a net worth of six figures” was a bridge too far. Yes, many of us did struggle. We lost our homes and had children to look after, and it took years to repair credit ratings ruined through no fault of our own. But you know, every generation blames its predecessor - I know I did when I was a teenager. We gain perspective as we get older - but I would never talk about Millennials in such a manner. It’s lousy.
People did not have to be over 75 to get multiple Covid payments from the government.
There was one senior's covid deposit early days wasn't there? To help with bus fare and masks and such? $300? Cannot remember.
$500, I believe. I think that Sandra may be referring to CERB - I am not sure what other “multiple Covid payments” there might be.
There's some caregiver tax credits you should check out:
https://www.sunlife.ca/en/tools-and-resources/money-and-finances/managing-your-money/4-important-tax-credits-that-help-caregivers/
Thank you, Michael. My mother is gone now, and we were lucky to be able to keep her with us almost until the end of her life. I am glad that these are available to people looking after their parents.
It does suggest the political power that accrues to a demographic that actually turns out to vote, though, doesn't it? A younger demographic could do a lot if they could actually be arsed to dedicate 15-30 minutes voting every few years.
What you call "pogey" for seniors is money they put into the CPP through out their working years. They paid into it to collect it at the stage they could no longer work. Its there for that reason as it is for all Canadians. After to you contribute for a life time how about we get rid of it just in time for you to start collecting yours. We can call it pogey you don't deserve.
OAS is not CPP. CPP is self and employer funded over your employment years, and it owed regardless. OAS is taxpayer funded and could end anytime.
Many who have saved over and above their CPP are not getting OAS. Those who do would most likely not have any savings of their own. It could end anytime as the government is considering a guaranteed income so if you feel your paying to many taxes now, you have not seen anything yet.
You would be wrong. Your under the impression that Government is here to take care of the people. I am here because I believe if the Government would get out of the way the people could take care of themselves. I don’t believe in free anything as there is no such thing. Everything comes at a cost to the taxpayers. Like I say Government is big, expensive, and incompetent. The less we have the better the whole country is.
OAS is a pretty reasonable program when it's directed as intended: making sure that the elderly can maintain some reasonable minimum living when they're no longer able to work. However, CPP is still a government creature. I've still got doubts about whether CPP will continue in its current form in the future. Government reforms in 1997 put it on a more secure footing, but anything a government can change once it can change again. If a future government decides that CPP assets should be "invested" in some new program or policy, they could easily undermine the current state of the program. Inflation could also hack back the anticipated benefit. I'm GenX and expect to be working for at least another 20 years, but I never put a whole lot of confidence in seeing a return on my CPP contributions.
OAS should be clawed back more agressively from people with substantial asset wealth. For example, no one would qualify if they had more than say $100K in asset wealth
the median income of those over 65 is $32000. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110023901&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.8&pickMembers%5B2%5D=3.1&pickMembers%5B3%5D=4.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2016&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2020&referencePeriods=20160101%2C20200101
And the civil servant and crown corp retirees bring that number up :)
Civil servants have to pay into their pensions monthly and the majority make less than $52,000 a year. The politicians don’t pay into theirs and after four years or more can receive generous pensions. I believe it depends on the positions they held and the length of time in those positions. It’s all covered by the taxpayer. Look at the Governor General who can bill all her expenses along with her generous pension for eternity, apparently. For some anyway.
The amount they pay into their pensions is laughably small considering they could collect 70% of their best 5 years, indexed to inflation for 30 plus years with absolutely no risk. The current value of those pensions is in the 7 figures.
Thank you for that information.
You're quite welcome. I wish I was one of those rich boomers like the our civil servants instead of the one moving the median down.
The amount of government under the new regime keeps growing and for each new addition the higher it costs the taxpayer. The elites don’t realize that, as they don’t bother with monetary policies. Only rich people can convey a message like that. I know many city politicians who are getting triple pensions. It’s all forms of government that receive the big money, not the clerk serving you at the front desk. That’s why I say, the less of them, the better off we will all be. The same goes for regulations.
I appreciate your comment, in particular because it leads directly to unnecessary and unhealthy divisiveness (although that may have been the desired intent). The housing topic warrants investigation and discussion, and many of the comments and linked articles here are valuable. The use of a term like “vampiric gerontocracy” however, needlessly distracts, creates confrontation and diminishes the chance for cooperation.
Using such an all encompassing term is also lazy in that it means that discerning more specifically where fault might lie becomes unimportant. How many of those who have fortunately gained a financial advantage might feel about it is also rendered inconsequential. In this regard, I would characterize it as less than responsible journalism.
She made some very fair points, which I appreciated. I also appreciate the frustration of younger people, and am by no means insensible to the difficulties they face. But this must be the third or fourth piece she’s written using the term (she says she’ll continue) and each time, her writing on the topic has become more and more splenetic. It’s her space, and her privilege to write whatever she wants - those of us who object strenuously enough are free to vote with our feet and wallets. It’s a shame, because it’s an important issue.
This is not the first ageist comment made by the author. Our age has little to do with our thinking and our support for government policy. The government created this problem. My millennial daughter purchased a brand new house at the start of the pandemic for an affordable price. She could not afford to purchase the same house now. The last two years changed the market. As the mother of three Millennials I worry all the time about their finances. This at the same time the purchasing power of my retirement savings is declining.
Boy oh boy Jen, that was a joyful read just before the Easter holidays. How about something about the cost of dying for Labour Day. and then the death of Santa Claus in December? It's a good thing you write well.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
A good read, apart from the anti-boomer rage. There are a lot of boomers who don't own homes. A lot. The anti-boomer angle takes so much away from your piece, which is that governments don't want to solve the problem.
Exactly. She made some very good points.
I love you for stuff like this, Jen. You are brutal and funny and bang on the money. I'm 71. My husband and I bought a home in Toronto in the late eighties. It tripled in value by the time we sold ten years ago and moved into a condo that has doubled again. The only way we could own a home today is by inheriting it.
The people who clean our building and provide security can't afford to live anywhere close. They have to commute forever on lousy transit from apartments in the outer boroughs. It's awful. And yet like you said, we don't want to see its (paper) value crash because if we outlive our savings we're counting on it to afford an apartment where we can pay a college educated former barista to change our Depends.
People like us voted Liberal and NDP. But damned if the left we knew hasn't abandoned the working class for Woke Twitterland, pushing its natural base to the right, then attacking it as racist for voting for the one party that doesn't insult it. The enemy of the poor isn't the rich, it's us comfortably housed, well-intentioned, left-leaning middle class.)
I fully expect that younger generations will soon find a way to relax the rules around assisted dying. "He's been a bit glum all week. Really, doctor, is this any way to live?"
Honestly, my generation lucked into the best time to be alive: We skipped all major wars, got off with a couple of short slumps, and will get to die before the planet incinerates. I feel for you guys. We didn't mean to screw you. But it sure turned out that way.
Thanks Allan. My sentiments exactly.
I share the concern with how ridiculous housing prices have gotten. It's hard to recruit people to work in the Lower Mainland of BC because of the cost of living. However, a few things to consider:
1) Price is a consequence of supply and demand. You can't just claim that housing prices are insane vs. other areas if people are continuing to pay the price. Is Vancouver as dynamic as Manhattan? No. Are people willing to pay the prices to live there? Yes. The price is just a signal indicating the relationship between supply and demand.
2) The demand side of price is affected by the affordability of the house. Crank up interest rates or tighten lending requirements, and you make it more expensive to finance a mortgage. I was just a kid during the 80s, but I remember how stressed out my parents were when they had to service a mortgage at double-digit rates. Lower prices don't necessarily make housing more accessible, unless you're going to pay in cash.
3) Take a look back over time at changes in property prices. A truly dramatic crash in prices is on the order of 30% - that's like the crash in Calgary in 1982. That's about as far as history tells you prices will unwind, short of a massive natural disaster or civilizational collapse. If you couldn't afford a house at 2010 prices, even a massive market crash isn't going to do much for you.
4) The proportion of Canadians who own their homes has steadily increased over time, including with the crazy spike in prices over the past couple of years. The fact that this number isn't falling suggests we're not quite at the catastrophic point this piece suggests. It also supports the idea that there's going to be little support for collapsing the real estate market. There aren't a lot of areas of Canadian public life where you find a supermajority like that on one side of an issue.
There is no easy fix here. The solution is building enough stuff to slow or stop the increase in prices. That's not going to change things overnight, though. Getting to this point took sustained screwing with zoning, the housing market, and the cost of real estate transactions. The supply of housing needs to at least match population growth, or else economics tells you prices will just keep climbing in perpetuity.
I wouldn't mind a significant house vacancy tax.
Nope. There is a lot of flailing here. Focus. Municipalities are the problem. It’s a supply issue called banana: build absolutely nothing anywhere’s anytime. City councils and their supporters the citizen groups block, delay, prevent and obstruct new housing. I get your frustration. What I don’t get is why we put up with it.
We put up with it because the populace voted for them in a democratic election. Don’t like it? Run for Council.
Of course. That is correct. However, been there done that. So if you are correct, then we the people really want our messed up housing market. I don’t believe that we really want the mess we are in.
The results bear out what the electorate wants. Unhappy about it? Start a petition. Run for Office. Or move. It’s very Canadian to bitch and moan. Maybe that’s the real problem…we whine and do nothing and then turn right around and demand government “fix” the problem they were responsible for creating in the first place. It’s tiresome.
I believe we should focus our attention on the need for housing at the local, municipal level. More affordable, smaller bungalows with green spaces for socializing and the environment.
Sure. And let’s invite the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny over for a tea party as well. FFS…
A few facts: Canada’s annual mortality rate is approximately 300,000. The birth rate is approximately 360,000. Immigration is between 400,000 and 500,000 people annually.
Housing starts are now between 240,000 and 260,000 per year.
Boomers are the ones in the mortality bracket - their homes go on the market at that time and their kids get to split the proceeds to buy their homes (which are likely to be multi-family rather than single).
Boomers are not having children nor are they demanding increased immigration.
You are caught in a supply shortage and your solution is simply to devalue the market thinking it will decrease demand.
Most cities have limited amounts of re-developable land and the cost of permits, construction and supporting infra-structure continue to inflate - you may be able to house more people with increased density but such housing is still expensive (affordable is brought about by subsidy only).
As boomers die off and as rezoning prohibits single family homes, densification with continue to increase - driven by population growth.
Dense pack is the order of the day for Canadian cities but don’t kid yourself that it will make living less expensive.
Lose your resentment towards boomers - they’re on their way out.
It’s the new arrivals that you’ll be competing with.
Blaming the baby boomers is somewhat disingenuous as they are not the ones putting the developmental regulations in place.
- That is the Municipalities, (zoning) Provinces, and the Federal Government.
- Environmental regulations also hamper the building of new homes and land use.
- Inflation and the cost of products to build homes.
- Investment Companies like Blackrock buying units for investment purposes due to low interest rates
- In larger centers like Vancouver and Toronto many illegal activities and money laundering have
also contributed to the rise of housing costs in these and other cities.
- Choice of where you want to live also comes into play.
Marylou, I respectfully disagree with a significant portion of your comment.
First off, you say that government at all three levels is an impediment. I absolutely agree but you must remember that the government is us. Who votes those b*****ds in/out? Why, you and me. The point is, get off your butt and demand that those governments change the zoning, environmental, etc. rules as appropriate. Get your friends to similarly write letters - what an old fashioned concept - make telephone calls, hector your elected representatives, etc. Don't be passive.
Inflation is clearly as result of our governments' mismanagement, in particular, the federal government. Building costs go up and they go down; that is a fact of life and we cannot do much about that issue but we can pressure the rule makers to not require palaces level building codes.
You blame Blackrock, et al. I have no brief for Blackrock et al purchase rental housing but do not affect the supply of new housing.
You talk about illegal activities including money laundering. Again, pressure your authorities to deal with illegalities. Some things are simply: the rules are pretty clear but why are the politicians allowing them to be flouted.
So, overall, I respectfully advise you to not be passive but to be active to ensure that rules are followed and that rules are modified where they are too restrictive and result in damage (e.g. many of the silly zoning rules).
I am just saying these are some of the issues. It certainly is not due to the baby boomers. Most baby boomers watch their pennies pretty close and do not want more taxes. I am not passive in anyway and vote at every election. First I make sure who and what I am voting for before placing a ballot in a box.
Its not a simple as it sounds to get things changed or we would not be in this mess in the first place. This has been a long standing issue with many attempts to change it and yet it has only gotten worse. In my books Governments and their regulations are most of the problem. We need less of them and more developers.
The Cullen Commission is for BC but the same thing is happening across Canada and in the major cities like Toronto and neighboring places. Canada has become one of the biggest countries for Drug gangs and money laundering due to little restriction. Much of it is put into real estate to clean it. It has caused a fair amount of the increase in housing costs. Sam Cooper has a book out on it called Wilfull Blindness. He has been reporting on the story and the Commission. I also just read on Blacklock's that there is intelligence reports of gangs and mafias infiltrating City Halls across Canada as well. I just read that the other day. I say the reason things are so bad is everyone's fault for not paying attention to what is happening around them, in their communities, and with every level of Government before they vote. They listen to the promises but do not look at their track record. Government at its best is expensive and incompetent.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pierre-poilievre-housing-costs-property-vancouver-1.6415929
https://cullencommission.ca/other-reports/
Marylou:
I have read your comment with interest and I cannot criticize it.
What I can say is that simply voting is insufficient. As you know, we vote but the politicians ignore we the voters. They pay attention to lobby groups and, particularly, those who give money (all legal - !!!!! - to be sure - maybe / maybe not).
Ultimately, what that means is that you have to be a thorn in the side of the politicians. You need to write letters (old fashioned concept that), perhaps send emails, etc.
[Politicians used to say that they paid more attention to letter writers than phone calls because if you took the time to write a letter you were more serious and interested in the subject.]
Personally, I do send letters and, occasionally emails to politicians. I find it interesting the number of times I am ignored and the number of times I get replies, sometimes simple form letters but sometimes thoughtful responses. The best responses are where a representative explains why they disagree with me. That I can work with! I then reconsider my position and perhaps ask the politician to reconsider theirs. Sometimes it works.
But, always, always, you need to do the legwork. You cannot simply vote and call it a day, hoping for the best. Remember, the government R us, so bad government decisions are our own fault.
[Except for that gang in Ottawa, which is NOT, NOT, NOT my government!!!]
I agree with you one hundred percent. I have written letters on mass and knowing now realize it is better to do it through snail mail. I think they ignore email letters. I have attended rallies and meetings and wrote many letters to get our hospital expansion back on the list. I am in no way passive. I have been loud and proud about most things government as I am, like you, not impressed with the Liberal/NDP Government of Canada. I always speak out, much to many folks chagrin. Lol
First, I commend you on speaking out. Always, in all ways, we must do that.
As for email, I have been surprised by how often a thoughtful (my conceit, you know) email is answered. Frequently with a form email, "Thanks for ...., etc." but surprisingly often with some commentary meaning that they have read the email. But, the best (again, my conceit) is a well written, thoughtful snail mail missive.
Add the "welcome" tax. CMHC money grab.
Accurate! No one wants to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Erin O'Toole during the last election stated that immigration should be based on what the provinces wanted, not a federal quota. Unfortunately, it is buried in the archives and forgotten at this point.
You make a good point Ross. The 401,000 permanent residents that immigrated here last year didn't automatically get a house but probably would like to eventually. I hope many of them are tradespeople that we need to build the houses that they and many other Canadians want.
Sorry Ref: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2021/12/canada-welcomes-the-most-immigrants-in-a-single-year-in-its-history.html
Hi Jen - generally I agree with your articles but in this case you’ve chosen to “toss raw meat out to the angry crowd” for some reason - which is disappointing. Hopefully you’ll find your usual insightful observations in the next piece.
What a stinging article! Imagine my shock to learn that my contemporaries and I are part of this vampiric gerontology. I mean, really?
Of course I feel badly for my kids and their contemporaries as they try to buy their first homes. It’s almost impossible right now. But other generations have faced huge challenges as well, lest we forget.
Can’t wait for your follow-up article on the cost of health care to keep the vampiric gerontocracy alive and well as they feed off their offspring.
Maybe we should all just jump off a cliff when we hit age 75? Problem solved.
<rant> Believe it or not, all we Boomers were your age at one time. We couldn't afford those 2-storey brick houses on tree-lined streets in downtown neighbourhoods a 10 minute walk to the market, so we bought 1,200 sq.ft. frame bungalows in the suburbs and had to commute to work.
Now you're complaining because you have to spread further out, and you're threatening to take over our municipal councils so you can destroy our self-landscaped neighbourhoods. We didn't make our houses so valuable -- it's you and your desire to have them.
You want to live close to where you work, but you work in the downtown of large cities because we now have a "service economy". Grow up, stop complaining, and stop buying goods manufactured offshore.
BTW, you can solve the “vampiric gerontocracy” by putting us on icebergs when we hit a certain age. </rant>
Honesty. So rare. Thank you, Jen.
It doesn't HAVE to be this way, of course, but it would require the Young to show up and vote, and be as organized as the Old. Which does not seem to be in the offing.
Aha!!
You note the need for personal responsibility. Quite a concept that.
Please note that I am not being sarcastic when I make the above comment.
Ultimately, many of the things - not all, but many - preventing increased supply are the result of choices in favor of the status quo. Roy, you and I are approximately the same age; we are retired and have purchase our home(s) many years ago. In my case, I am fortunate in that my mortgage was paid some years ago; I will arbitrarily (with no specific knowledge, you understand) assume that is your case. That means that you and I are in the cohort that pushes for zoning to favor single family homes, disallow densification, restrict certain transit choices, etc., etc.
In order for additional supply to occur it is important that there be thoughtful densification, thoughtful multi-family dwellings, etc. In other words, "you and I" [i.e. we as symbols of our generation] need to work to allow more housing so that our children and grandchildren can benefit.
Many of these NIMBY like things are the result of government but remember that government R us.
Always had the attached suite, so we were 1.5 density, if not a duplex, for 30 yrs, then retired to an 18-unit coop condo. Couldn't be happier, either. Gaining rather than losing friends in retirement!
Empty nesters aren't just floorspace hogs with too much maintenance worries; they're nuts.
Cynical much? Yup.
Oh, but spot on, as well.
As always, Jen, you write well and convincingly.
I have the (good / mis?) fortune to be in my early seventies. That means that I have seen at least one or two things; I even wrote a (highly dreadful) university paper on the topic of housing in about 1970. Among the things that I have seen and recall is that Trudeau 1 dealt with / allegedly tried to deal with the housing issue - there, see, I didn't call it a "problem."
Trudeau 1 didn't succeed, just as Trudeau 2 won't succeed. Now, having said that, one thing that Trudeau 1 (with those number, aren't you just expecting 3 to be on the horizon? Gawd!!!) did was to introduce MURBs - multiple unit residential buildings. Now, those weren't new types of housing but the tried and true townhouses, high rises, etc. What was new was the financing, which allowed fast write off for taxes for the owners. By definition MURBs were rental housing but they quickly moved from the rental market to being owner occupied. Ultimately, Trudeau 1 eliminated MURBs as a financing tool because it became too popular and the government saw too much tax revenue deferred.
The point is, as near as I can recall, that was the closest any government has come to finding a way to successfully create additional supply: they created the ability for the marketplace to finance additional supply.
I am not saying that we need to bring back the MURB rules but I am saying that the federal levers are very few. The MURB rules worked because they were entirely under federal control - i.e. the Income Tax Act. Pretty much all other claimed "solutions" require extensive provincial and/or municipal co-operation to change zoning, increase density, etc., etc., etc. In short, the status quo - i.e. the home owners' self interest - is highly likely to ensure that there are no such changes.
The best that I can suggest to those who want to buy a home is for all housing aspirants to clearly, emphatically and continuously tell their parents / grandparents / aunts / uncles / etc. that "they" (i.e. parents et al) are the reason that said aspirants cannot acquire a home because "they" prevent zoning changes, cause governments to require more and more in terms of building codes, etc.
So, the supply side is really where it must change but I am not hopeful. The federal government has very few powers to assist in the supply side and truly, with the bunch that we have now - and prospectively - I simply don't see the imagination to allow increased supply.
The demand side keeps going up. Natural growth of the population, immigration of 400,000 per year and the ongoing pressures of life (for example, divorce sees one housing unit become two housing units needed), etc. all keep demand increasing. Note that I have not discussed foreign ownership, vacant houses owned by "others," etc. simply because, while I do not deny that they have an effect, it is my opinion that the overall effect of those issues is entirely nominal and is used by politicians to deflect their own failings of policy and imagination.
So, what have I done? I helped one of my children with a down payment; I expect that when my other adult child is in a position to purchase a home I will get a similar request. Could I afford the first one? Yes, I was working and could manage that hit. Can I afford the second one? I simply don't know as I am now retired and I don't have the same capacity.
The point is, however, that my generation has benefited so we have to be part of the solution, even when it hurts.
MURB's were a disaster...lots of shoddy product and investment scams. Government incentives lead to performative behavior
Doug, you are right, MURBs definitely had problems. What they did do, however, was to get capital to allow housing to be built and insufficient supply of housing is a real problem right now.
They were a gimmick that was encouraged through the Income Tax Act and gimmicks encouraged by the ITA often produce - at best!!! - mixed results.
The point, however, is not that we should re-introduce MURBs but that they did represent different thinking. Good thinking? Perhaps not, but it was much more creative than a great deal than the (lack of) thinking that is being done today.
You say, "... lots of shoddy product and investment scams ..." I agree that some of the housing was poorly built but some of it was well built and is still good quality housing over forty years later. Investment scams? I am a retired CPA and, yes, I did see investment scams in that period that involved MURBs but I also saw a lot of good quality projects.
So, I simply use MURBs as an example of how we need to think differently when it comes to increasing the supply of housing.
I feel for the Millennial angst, but Jen only touched on another important point...all the capital trapped in housing does nothing to promote productivity growth which is the only source of real income growth. Think what could be accomplished if some of that money were invested in tech startups or plant and equipment.
The government will fight a housing crash because the illusion of housing wealth papers over the government's complete ineptitude at promoting productivity growth.
Wow Jen. This is an angry piece. I love love your writing style so this was thoroughly entertaining. I think your anti aged theme is unconstructive, and misguided however. That aside I agree with your thesis. No level of government wants housing to be affordable. If they did they would allow it to function like a proper market without all the incentives you mention. Everyone thinks owning a big house is a sacred right. It’s not. If it was a true market, without propped up lending and incentives it would correctly sharply and housing would be so much cheaper